|
The King of
Bhutan handed over to the Bhutanese Prime
Minister, on December 3, the first draft
Constitution of Bhutan prepared by the
Constitution Drafting Committee, set up by the
King in November 2001. This draft will be
discussed in 20 districts before it is presented
to the National Assembly (NA), when
it convenes in June 2003.
After the
traditional ‘flattery, crying and wailing’ by
the NA members against the purported change in
the political system envisaged by the Draft
Constitution and in support of the existing
regime, the Constitution will be adopted. In any
case the NA sessions are stage-managed by the
RGOB. All nations have a Constitution as basic
law, so it is hardly exciting if Bhutan wants to
have one even belatedly, to make it a
respectable and sovereign member of
international community.
Bhutan was
admitted to the UN in 1971 without a
Constitution. It is probably the last country in
the world, which does not have a basic law and
the Royal decrees are still the laws. Mere
adoption of a Constitution does not mean the
establishment of a true representative
democratic system. China, Myanmar and Pakistan,
all have Constitution minus a true
representative democratic system.
Committee:
The Royal Government of Bhutan ( RGOB) did not
include any member from Nepali-speaking
Lhotshampa community in the drafting committee,
thus, muting the minority voice in its
formulation. Thus, the Constitution will always
be a subject of debate and controversy even
after its adoption. A controversial Constitution
will definitely not command expected respect
from the citizens.
Gimmick:
The Constitution is being officially publicised as
a ‘Royal Gift" without the desire or the demands
of people. This ‘Constitution’ is yet another
gimmick in the arsenal of the RGOB to hoodwink
the international community and deflect
international opinion from the real issue of
the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees,
resettlement in the lands vacated by refugees
and human rights abuses inside Bhutan. There
will be no real freedoms and all the rights
promised by the drafting committee are
impossible to achieve in Bhutan. The demand for
the Constitution came from the exiled Bhutanese
groups, which the RGOB does not recognise. The
RGOB is under no threat or pressure to
promulgate the Constitution as the demand for
the Constitution did not come from the Bhutanese
people inside Bhutan. The Chairman of the
drafting committee and the RGOB have frequently
told the international media that the people do
not want Constitution and are happy with the
present system.
Moreover, the RGOB
has been already saying that it is a ‘royal
gift’ rather than peoples’ aspiration. While the
Constitution was at the final stage of
drafting, a country-wide election was held on
October 29, 2002 for the post of 201 village
headman which was not conducted by any
independent Election Commission, but by the
Dzongdas (district administrators) as usual. How
can it be called a democratic exercise? The
Constitution thus, is intended to serve the
interests of the rulers and not of the ruled. In
real terms, Bhutan would be no different from
the erstwhile Panchayati raj in pre-1990 Nepal
after the adoption of Constitution.
Some government
hawks and advisors ridiculously argue that
Bhutan’s autocratic system has substance of
democracy. Others argue that the "grassroots
democracy" is the only suitable form of
democracy for Bhutan, downplaying the role of
political parties and the civil society in the
new Constitution. However, their arguments look
naive, self-confusing and self-defeating. Since
the democracy is "of the people, for the people
and by the people’ and this is the ultimate and
universally accepted principle of
democracy. People are primary and grassroots
institutions and the political parties and the
civil society promote and protect their rights
and interests.
Personal
freedoms: Bhutanese people do not enjoy even
basic personal freedoms like wearing the dresses
of their own choice. The government infringes
the personal freedoms with the prescription
of dress code, similar to what Chinese rulers
did during the cultural revolution. The
government is still sponsoring its pet project
‘Driglam Namzha’, the social and religious codes
which ban the wearing of a other dresses (except
national dress) by Bhutanese people. And here
the government is talking about the ‘Bill of
Rights and democracy’ in a grandiose manner. How
can Bhutan balance between the forces
of personal freedoms envisaged by the
Constitution and the government-sponsored
Driglam Namzha?
Lack of
institutions: The RGOB has not established
any democratic institutions to implement and
support the Constitution. In fact, it never
encouraged for the creation of these
institutions. The RGOB should have first
established the basic democratic institution
prior to implementing the Constitution. There
isno Election Commission. There are no qualified
judges with legal educational background to
interpret the Constitution and uphold the
independence of the judiciary. People have no
right to freedom of expression and press, which
are the basic pillars under which
the Constitution and a democratic society stand.
Without the right
to freedom of expression and press, how are the
people expected to deliberate on the
Constitution and express their views? The
government must allow the political parties and
real civil societies to function inside the
country. Other countries including Nepal which
switched over to democracy from the autocratic
or totalitarian system did have these
institutions including legally qualified
judges. The basic flaw in the Bhutanese
society, system and the government is not the
lack or absence of a Constitution, but their
intolerance to any kind of criticism. A rebel is
born, if he is prevented from speaking.
There are hundreds
of political prisoners in Bhutanese prisons
incarcerated for their criticism of the
government policies and voicing concern for
political and human rights. It is impossible for
the people who are still being denied and
deprived of their basic rights to believe that
the criticism-hating feudal system
will change just because, it has adopted a 50
pages of the document and that this document
will bring qualitative and real change to their
lives.
Refugees:
The new Constitution will not solve Bhutanese
refugee problem, rather it will exacerbate their
situation. If the discriminatory Citizenship
Act, 1985, which is responsible for the
generation of refugees is incorporated in the
new Constitution, it will prevent the return of
Bhutanese refugees permanently. The RGOB is
likely to keep this Act. If the elections are
held before the repatriation of refugees, this
will eventually block the return of refugees
since, their name will not be included in
the electoral roll or voter list, thus making
them non-citizens permanently. Thus, the
objectives of the constitutional exercise as of
now, seems to stall the repatriation of
Bhutanese refugees. The King in his national
address on national day Dec 17 outlining the
policies supported the resettlement in southern
Bhutan.
Bhutanese rulers
must accept the fact that the primary
requirement of Bhutanese nationhood is the
consolidation and defence of a nation-state
system, where all ethnic groups share the common
‘space’ and live in prosperity. Any change not
supported by adequate and appropriate
institutions, mechanism and people’s support
tend to collapse the entire system, sometimes
violently, for which the change is sought for.
Internationalisation: So long,
the international community has been watching
the bilateral initiatives as a mute spectator
and has not taken a pro-active initiative for
the real repatriation. The decade-old bilateral
initiative has become futile and completely
incapable of repatriating Bhutanese refugees to
their homeland. There had been nodearth of
international diplomatic community’s visits to
the refugee camps including that of the head of
the UNCHR. Despite these, no genuine and visible
efforts and commitments on the repatriation of
Bhutanese refugees have been taken by the
international community and the United Nations.
International community has not done anything
even after a year of the completion of
verification - even the verification results
have not been published.
Bhutanese refugees
are watching the international mediation on
diffusing the violent conflict in Sri Lanka.
They are also keenly watching the international
interests in solving the Maoist problems in
Nepal. These efforts demonstrate that if the
international community desires, it can solve
vexed problems including the repatriation of
Bhutanese refugees. However, no such initiatives
or concerns from the international community
or the United Nations for the actual
repatriation of the Bhutanese refugees have come
forward. This is high time that the United
Nations and the international community took
initiatives to repatriate Bhutanese refugees.
(The author is a Bhutanese political analyst)
Kathmandu Post
|
